On 31 Jan 2024 22:56:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Nope, everything he said is true. Very true.

I provided URLs which proved it.
You provide nothing but stammering denials.

You resort to insults because that's all you've got, Jolly Roger.

Not only had I provided URLs which prove what he said was wrong, it's
obvious Alan Browne doesn't realize everything he loves about the walled
garden is because he has to log into what he calls the "country club"
mainframes in order to obtain those walled-garden niceties.

Without the Apple ID, he can't even install software, that's how crippled
the iPhone is.

What Alan Browne loves about the Apple ecosystem is that Apple treats the
iPhone as a dumb terminal, where all the "country club" stuff Alan Browne
loves is running remotely on mainframe servers under Apple's full control.

There's nothing wrong with the dumb-terminal-to-mainframe model by the way.
But there's nothing unique about it either.

Android has it too for messaging if you're willing to log into a server.
https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/

And Android has it for file sharing also.
https://github.com/szimek/sharedrop

"The main difference between ShareDrop and AirDrop is that ShareDrop
requires Internet connection to discover other devices, while AirDrop
doesn't need one, as it creates ad-hoc wireless network between them. On
the other hand, ShareDrop allows you to share files between mobile (Android
and iOS) and desktop devices and even between networks."

What's clear is Alan Browne knows none of this.
Like Trump activists, Alan Browne only thinks what Apple feeds him.

The real world eludes Alan Browne because he's unaware that everything he
loves about Apple is because Apple treats the iPhone like a dumb terminal.

On 2024-02-01, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 31 Jan 2024 22:56:07 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Nope, everything he said is true. Very true.
>
> I provided URLs which proved it.

Adults can clearly see you snipped the context above in a feeble attempt
to squirm away from the topic which is that iMessage is an Apple product
that Android users want to use without owning an Apple device.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1 Feb 2024 02:06:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> iMessage is an Apple product
> that Android users want to use without owning an Apple device.

No. You still can't seem to comprehend that they're on Android.
They're not on an iPhone.
They don't want an iPhone.

If they did want an iPhone, they'd buy an iPhone.
But they don't want an iPhone.

In fact, they don't want anything whatsoever to do with the iPhone.

What some people want to use is the Apple messages mainframe server.
Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.

Because they have a crappy carrier that charges them for MMS attachments.
Just like they want the WhatsApp servers (which most of Europe uses).

What they want are the WhatsApp servers (& the people they reach).
And they want the Apple messaging servers (& the people they reach).

You'll never understand that because you're desperate to find something
(anything) redeeming in the iPhone itself (which is just a dumb terminal).

On 2024-01-31 19:02, Sten deJoode wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024 02:06:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> iMessage is an Apple product
>> that Android users want to use without owning an Apple device.
>
> No. You still can't seem to comprehend that they're on Android.
> They're not on an iPhone.
> They don't want an iPhone.

They want a SERVICE that Apple provides to customers of Apple PRODUCTS.

>
> If they did want an iPhone, they'd buy an iPhone.
> But they don't want an iPhone.
>
> In fact, they don't want anything whatsoever to do with the iPhone.
>
> What some people want to use is the Apple messages mainframe server.
> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>
> Because they have a crappy carrier that charges them for MMS attachments.
> Just like they want the WhatsApp servers (which most of Europe uses).
>
> What they want are the WhatsApp servers (& the people they reach).
> And they want the Apple messaging servers (& the people they reach).
>
> You'll never understand that because you're desperate to find something
> (anything) redeeming in the iPhone itself (which is just a dumb terminal).

On 2024-02-01, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024 02:06:58 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> iMessage is an Apple product that Android users want to use without
>> owning an Apple device.
>
> What some people want to use is the Apple messages mainframe server.

They want to use the iMessage messaging service, which is an Apple
product. They could use WhatsApp, Signal, or any number of other
messaging services, but they desperately want to use Apple's. And the
fact that you think you are somehow being "clever" by calling it a
"mainframe" is laughably weak.

> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.

You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
internet, but over cellular networks.

> Because they have a crappy carrier that charges them for MMS
> attachments.

Nope, they could use any number of alternative messaging apps, but want
to use iMessage instead.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1 Feb 2024 05:25:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> They want to use the iMessage messaging service, which is an Apple
> product. They could use WhatsApp, Signal, or any number of other
> messaging services,

It's good you finally figured it out that they don't want to use the iPhone
but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with iPhones.

I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago, and we could have
saved fifty posts where you couldn't get it through your head how it works.

>> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>
> You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
> internet, but over cellular networks.

When I send an MMS attachment, it goes over my carrier's cellular network.
But in my case, I'm not charged anything additional by my carrier.

But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work that way
(because they're charged when the carrier sends the MMS attachment).

They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet from their phone to the
Apple mainframe server which then sends it off to the Apple dumb terminals.

Are you saying it doesn't work that way for those trying to send an MMS
attachment NOT through their carrier but through Apple's Internet servers?

You've been completely wrong this entire thread so I have to ask you to
confirm that you're saying the people who are charged by their carrier per
MMS attachment actually can't circumvent those carrier-imposed MMS charges
by using the Apple servers to send their MMS attachments (as with Beeper).

On 2024-02-01, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024 05:25:54 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> They want to use the iMessage messaging service, which is an Apple
>> product. They could use WhatsApp, Signal, or any number of other
>> messaging services,
>
> It's good you finally figured it out that they don't want to use the
> iPhone

On the contrary, the only person here making that asinine claim is
*you*, Arlen. You like to try to misrepresent what people say to build
your little straw men, but adults see right through that childish game.

> but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with
> iPhones.

No, they want to use the iMessage service. And the fact that you think
iMessage is run on one server says all we need to know about your
knowledge in this area. You're clueless as usual.

> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago

Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.

>>> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>>
>> You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
>> internet, but over cellular networks.
>
> When I send an MMS attachment, it goes over my carrier's cellular
> network.

Duh. That's what I said.

> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
> that way (because they're charged when the carrier sends the MMS
> attachment).
>
> They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet

Nope. They aren't interested in SMS or MMS. And they aren't interested
in WhatsApp, Signal, or other internet messaging apps. They want to use
iMessage, but without an Apple device, which is in violation of the
terms of service. You are *desperate* to move the goal post, but it is
firmly planted in the ground.

> Are you saying it doesn't work that way for those trying to send an
> MMS attachment NOT through their carrier but through Apple's Internet
> servers?

Get this through your incredibly thick head: SMS and MMS are not
internal technologies. Never have been. Never will be.

> You've been completely wrong this entire thread

Projection from a mental weakling.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 1 Feb 2024 15:51:15 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> You like to try to misrepresent what people say to build
> your little straw men, but adults see right through that childish game.

The fact that you were wrong the entire time is why you're so angry.

It's not my fault you didn't get the logic that the people using Beeper
were on Android phones (even though that was obvious to everyone else).

>
>> but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with
>> iPhones.
>
> No, they want to use the iMessage service. And the fact that you think
> iMessage is run on one server says all we need to know about your
> knowledge in this area. You're clueless as usual.

The service runs on mainframe servers as Apple designed iPhones using dumb
terminal models where without those servers, the walled garden isn't.

>> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago
>
> Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
> about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
> it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.

What's revealing is you finally figured out, after fifty posts, that
Android users are on Android because they don't want to be on the iPhone,
and then you are so embarrassed about taking fifty posts to finally get
that obvious fact, that you blame me for your lack of understanding.

Earth to Jolly Roger. They're using Beeper with Android because they
expressly do not want to have anything to do with the iPhone. Idiot.

>>>> Which allows those people to send MMS attachments over the Internet.
>>>
>>> You're ignorant. MMS messages are inherently *not* sent over the
>>> internet, but over cellular networks.
>>
>> When I send an MMS attachment, it goes over my carrier's cellular
>> network.
>
> Duh. That's what I said.

My point exactly. It took you fifty posts to figure out the obvious.

>
>> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
>> that way (because they're charged when the carrier sends the MMS
>> attachment).
>>
>> They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet
>
> Nope. They aren't interested in SMS or MMS.

Here's where you're again wrong. They don't want the iPhone. Most Android
users wouldn't want to be caught dead with the iPhone anywhere near them.

It's too limited. It can't do thousands of things that Android does.

What some people (who have crappy carrier plans) want is to use the Apple
mainframe servers to send MMS attachments over the Internet without being
charged by the carrier for those MMS attachments.

> And they aren't interested
> in WhatsApp, Signal, or other internet messaging apps.

Even after fifty posts you still don't get it that the dumb terminal model
the iPhone uses is no different from the same model that WhatsApp uses.

Nobody on Android wants anything to do with the iPhone.
They wouldn't want to be caught dead within fifty feet of an iPhone.

They use WhatsApp servers EXACTLY like they use the Apple message servers.
The Apple ecosystem is, to them, nothing more than the WhatsApp ecosystem.

The only difference are the customers reached, where Apple has a healthy
15% of the world market, which I've always said is a lot of customers.

> They want to use
> iMessage, but without an Apple device, which is in violation of the
> terms of service. You are *desperate* to move the goal post, but it is
> firmly planted in the ground.

None of them want iMessage. They want the free MMS. The instant that Apple
figures out how to come up to speed on RCS, they won't need the servers.

It was always the Apple users who were left out of the modern RCS capacity.

>> Are you saying it doesn't work that way for those trying to send an
>> MMS attachment NOT through their carrier but through Apple's Internet
>> servers?
>
> Get this through your incredibly thick head: SMS and MMS are not
> internal technologies. Never have been. Never will be.

What you still don't understand, even after fifty posts, is that what those
people want (who are charged for MMS attachments) is to send MMS over the
Internet (which is what Beeper tried to allow those people to do).

When Apple finally figures out how to add RCS to the iPhone, there won't be
any need for those people to use Apple's servers to send them over the net.

The carrier will do fine when that happens (just as the carrier does fine
when those same Android users send MMS messages to other Android users).

It was always the Apple users who were left out of the modern RCS equation.

>> You've been completely wrong this entire thread
>
> Projection from a mental weakling.

Notice you resort to insults because it took you over fifty posts to
finally figure out that nobody on Android wanted to use the iPhone.

Otherwise they'd be on the iPhone. This is basic logic, Jolly Roger.
It's something you'd say "Duh" to if you only understood basic logic.

What some wanted was the capability they already have on Android via RCS
was to send MMS attachments over the Internet to Apple users too.

It's always the Apple user who is behind in technology but soon Apple will
catch up on RCS and then those people can reach Apple users without paying
for the MMS messages (like they already have for reaching Android users).

On 2024-02-02, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2024 15:51:15 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> You like to try to misrepresent what people say to build your little
>> straw men, but adults see right through that childish game.
>
> The fact that you were wrong the entire time

Nope, I never claimed Android users want an iPhone - that was you trying
to fabricate a straw man. And you failed at it.

> you're so angry.

I'm perfectly calm. You, on the other hand, are very obviously triggered
by the fact that Android users are desperate to use Apple servers
without owning Apple products.🙂

> It's not my fault you didn't get the logic that the people using
> Beeper were on Android phones (even though that was obvious to
> everyone else).

Another weak fabrication of yours. Is this really the best you can do,
Arlen? It's pretty pathetic. It's as if you believe everyone here will
just forget that what you say didn't happen. You must think people are
every bit as stupid and gullible as you. Unfortunately you're wrong, and
you have zero credibility. You're just low-level trolling. 😉

>>> but just the mainframe server that Apple uses to communicate with
>>> iPhones.
>>
>> No, they want to use the iMessage service. And the fact that you
>> think iMessage is run on one server says all we need to know about
>> your knowledge in this area. You're clueless as usual.
>
> The service runs on mainframe servers

Nope, just servers.

> Apple designed iPhones using dumb terminal

Bullshit. iPhones are much more powerful than dumb terminals. One clear
example is the inclusion of the A-series neural engine which allows
developers to use the Core ML and other frameworks to do on-device
machine learning, where many of Apple's competitors use cloud-based
machine learning processing which makes them more deserving of the term
dumb terminal and also compromise the privacy of their users. You're
desperately making these outright lies as if you think the rest of us
are just as dumb and gullible as you are, but those juvenile antics
won't work here.

>>> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago
>>
>> Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
>> about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
>> it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.
>
> What's revealing is you finally figured out, after fifty posts, that
> Android users are on Android because they don't want to be on the iPhone

The fact that you think this isn't blatantly obvious to everyone here is
telling and says way more about you than anyone else. 😉

> Earth to Jolly Roger. They're using Beeper with Android because they
> expressly do not want to have anything to do with the iPhone. Idiot.

They want to use a messaging service that is *exclusive* to Apple
products.

>>> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
>>> that way

No matter how hard you try, nothing you say changes the fact that this
isn't about SMS/MMS. 🤣

>>> They want the MMS to be sent over the Internet
>>
>> Nope. They aren't interested in SMS or MMS.
>
> Here's where you're again wrong. They don't want the iPhone.

Nothing I said above was about iPhones, dip shit.

> What some people (who have crappy carrier plans) want is to use the Apple
> mainframe servers to send MMS attachments over the Internet without being
> charged by the carrier for those MMS attachments.

Get this through your thick head:
- iMessage servers aren't "mainframes".
- iPhones aren't "dumb terminals".
- iMessage has absolutely *nothing* to do with SMS/MMS messaging.
- Android users who want access to iMessage aren't trying to send
SMS/MMS messages.
- Androis users of Beeper and the like don't want to use other messaging
services like WhatsApp or Signal - they want access to iMessage.

>> And they aren't interested in WhatsApp, Signal, or other internet
>> messaging apps.
>
> the dumb terminal model the iPhone uses is no different from the same
> model that WhatsApp uses.

And yet Android users are building apps to use iMessage rather than
using WhatsApp - peculiar. 🤣

>> They want to use iMessage, but without an Apple device, which is in
>> violation of the terms of service. You are *desperate* to move the
>> goal post, but it is firmly planted in the ground.
>
> None of them want iMessage.

Untrue. It's exactly what they want.

> It was always the Apple users who were left out

Sure, pumpkin - that's why Beeper exists...

>> Get this through your incredibly thick head: SMS and MMS are not
>> internal technologies. Never have been. Never will be.
>
> What you still don't understand, even after fifty posts, is that what those
> people want (who are charged for MMS attachments) is to send MMS over the
> Internet (which is what Beeper tried to allow those people to do).

Nope, Beeper didn't send MMS messages through iMessage server - never
has. You clearly don't know the difference between cellular-based
SMS/MMS and internet-based messaging services. You're out of your
league.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 3 Feb 2024 01:07:53 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Android users are desperate to use Apple servers
> without owning Apple products.

I'll agree with anything anyone says that makes sense, which, unlike you,
means I am not going to defend either ecosystem to the death like you do.

I agree that some Android users have a lousy carrier who charges them for
each MMS attachment - and those poor Android users are what you claim.

Not me. I don't get charged for MMS attachments. But some people do.
They won't once Apple gets with the program by adopting RCS though.

>
>> It's not my fault you didn't get the logic that the people using
>> Beeper were on Android phones (even though that was obvious to
>> everyone else).
>
> Unfortunately you're wrong, and you have zero credibility.

I'm not afraid to be wrong because I'm not defending either ecosystem to
the death like you do, Jolly Roger. But you haven't shown me to be wrong.

In fact, it took you something like fifty posts to understand what was
clearly what you finally understood, which is why some Android users want
to take advantage of the dumb-terminal aspect the iPhone ecosystem is.

>> The service runs on mainframe servers
>
> Nope, just servers.

One thing I'm doing by calling them "mainframe servers" is underscoring the
fact that Apple designed its ecosystem to treat iPhones as dumb terminals.

Since you couldn't even garner your GED, it's important for me to use words
that you understand because it takes you fifty posts to get what Apple is.

Without that "mainframe" server, you can't even install a simple app.
That's how much Apple has you locked into their dumb-terminal ecosystem.

>
>> Apple designed iPhones using dumb terminal
>
> Bullshit.

Considering how low the IQ is of most of you Apple nutjobs, it's not
surprising you can't comprehend that the entire ecosystem is designed
around the iPhone being a dumb terminal accessing the Apple mainframes.

You can't even install an app without logging into those mainframes.
Name a single common consumer operating system that makes you do that?

HINT: ChromeOS is the same thing as iOS - they're both dumb terminals.

> iPhones are much more powerful than dumb terminals.

OK. Install an app WITHOUT logging into an Apple mainframe server then.

> One clear
> example is the inclusion of the A-series neural engine which allows
> developers to use the Core ML and other frameworks to do on-device
> machine learning, where many of Apple's competitors use cloud-based
> machine learning processing which makes them more deserving of the term
> dumb terminal and also compromise the privacy of their users. You're
> desperately making these outright lies as if you think the rest of us
> are just as dumb and gullible as you are, but those juvenile antics
> won't work here.

Do you always just cut and paste the (rather brilliant) marketing gimmicks
that Apple sells you on, Jolly Roger?

What's that got to do with the fact that you can't even install an app
without logging into the Apple mainframe servers, Jolly Roger?

Name another common consumer operating system which is that dumb, JR.
(Other than ChromeOS which is the same as iOS in its dumb-terminal design.)

>>>> I just wish you'd have figured that out fifty posts ago
>>>
>>> Projection. You are the one who started baselessly claiming this was
>>> about iPhones fifty posts ago, and several people have called you out on
>>> it from the beginning. You're not fooling anyone here.
>>
>> What's revealing is you finally figured out, after fifty posts, that
>> Android users are on Android because they don't want to be on the iPhone
>
> The fact that you think this isn't blatantly obvious to everyone here is
> telling and says way more about you than anyone else.

Look Jolly Roger. I know a lot more than you do about just about everything
but it's not because I'm smarter than you are - but because I'm not
brainwashed by (rather brilliant) marketing like you are.

That's the difference.

You can't deny that the dumb-terminal aspect of the iPhone is why it can't
even install an app without being forced to log into Apple's mainframes.

And then, in the next breath, you deny that the iPhone is designed as a
dumb terminal which can't do almost everything you like about the walled
garden without logging into an Apple mainframe server to do that task.

If you opened your eyes, you'd see how brilliant Apple's marketing is.

>> Earth to Jolly Roger. They're using Beeper with Android because they
>> expressly do not want to have anything to do with the iPhone. Idiot.
>
> They want to use a messaging service that is *exclusive* to Apple
> products.

Not true, but after fifty posts, you're getting closer to comprehending
reality. They don't care about Apple products. They want to use the server.

And they don't even care much about the Apple server, since the WhatsApp
server is the same thing to them. They want that 15% of the world customers
which is about 1/2 of the United States (which is a big number of people).

But you're getting closer. I commend you for thinking on your own for that.

>>>> But when _they_ send an MMS attachment, they don't want it to work
>>>> that way
>
> No matter how hard you try, nothing you say changes the fact that this
> isn't about SMS/MMS.

If you don't think it's about those few people who want to reach Apple's
customers through Apple's mainframes so that they can send MMS attachments
for free, then you have to explain to the rest of us what you think it is.

Bear in mind I have both Apple and Android devices, and I am well aware
that the Apple messages app is a piece of shit compared to PulseSMS.

Tell me, Jolly Roger, why would _I_ want to use the piece of shit Apple
messages app when I have a far better app in PulseSMS if what messages does
is what I want? https://home.pulsesms.app/overview/

There's NOTHING that Apple's messages does that PulseSMS doesn't already
do, if... and this is big... you're willing to use the mainframe to do it.

That's only _one_ of hundreds of things that are a piece of shit on the
iPhone without the mainframe. Take portable storage as another.

On Android, portable storage is fifty cents a gigabyte up to half a
terabyte (or so) while on iOS you are required to use a mainframe.

Almost everything you like about the Apple ecosystem is because Apple
designed the iPhone to be a dumb terminal that constantly accesses the
Apple mainframes to do even the simplest tasks like install an app.

No other common consumer operating system (other than ChromeOS) treats the
device like Apple does - and nobody wants ChromeOS either, by the way.

The only difference between ChromeOS & iOS is the brilliant marketing.
And the only difference between WhatsApp & messages is the customer base.

You're not smart enough to comprehend those two statements, but most are.

On 2024-02-03, Sten deJoode <StendeJood@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2024 01:07:53 GMT, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Android users are desperate to use Apple servers
>> without owning Apple products.
>
> I'll agree

We're done here.

Feel free to have a little Last Word pity party by yourself. I'm out.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR